What in the name of Sam Hill is a 'gallerist'?
I disagree with those who say that 'it is the image that is important not the way it's created'. Isn't the craft inherent in the aesthetic? Is a giclee
print of an oil painting the same as the original. I don't think so. Both are beautiful processes but serve an entirely differant purpose.
Why pursue differing methods of creating art if the process isn't important.
Regards,
David H
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 02:55 , Charlie Goodwin <cgoodwin@mcttelecom.com> sent:
>Hi,
>
>Another "wasn't going to chime in", but Christopher and Elizabeth had several valuable points to make.
>
>I would like to add a couple of my own points and perhaps amplify a couple of theirs. Forgive quite a bit of rambling, but the gallery
experience is definitely NOT intuitive and does require something of a primer.
>
>The topic of connecting the dots between commercial art galleries with big capital "A" Art, and photography and photographers is not
easy. Generally photographers are trained or self trained in the history and lingo and subject matter and craft of photography, and may know
something of a broader history of art, and may not, and especially may not know a lot of what's going on in the right now world of
contemporary art. Most (not all) photographers started in photography at some place around gaining technical competence - craft - mastery
of a medium, and often "live" esthetically in one of the camps of Adams photographs of the natural world, or perhaps in alt photo "painterly"
bucolic renditions.
>
>Most gallerists are basically not in the least interested in whether an image was generated through a camera or with a brush or a welding
torch or adhesive tape or whatever. What they usually do care about is seeing something that that gallerist him or herself likes; gallerists
generally show what they like. As time goes by, that filters out people who or don't see similarly, to develop an audience for their gallery that
is something of a reflection of their own taste / artistic direction.... If you walk into a gallery, show after show, and much of the work there
resonates with what you do, and if the work you do is at or close to that same level, that's a gallery to put on your "go see" list for your
portfolio. If that gallery is largely different from your artistic worldview, and seems at odds with your artistic direction, stay away; neither
that gallerist nor that audience will like your work.
>
>Gallerists are often after something - maybe new - maybe with some sort of surprise factor - almost always different in some way from other
artists already represented by the gallery, but nonetheless related to the gallery's existing stable of artists and the gallerist's eye. Yes, there
is something of an exaggerated fashion factor in the art world right now. But, if you go where you like the other work, and the other
work "likes you", and where your work would not overlap an existing artist there, it is perhaps a natural match, and just maybe fashion will
work for you rather than against.
>
>Most gallerists are flooded beyond easy coping with dozens and sometimes hundreds of hopeful artist's portfolios. Have pity. Their first
need is not to talk to you or me, but to pay the rent and pay their artists etc. They generally do NOT want me or you walking in off the street
with a bunch of prints in hand expecting to get a critique and an offer. What they want is for you to phone to the gallery, or check the
website, or mail them, and before all else, look for guidance about their submissions policy - how often they look at portfolios, how they want
things sent - yes sent / mailed - when one can reasonably expect the items returned - etc. Some galleries are just not looking. Newly
established galleries are often a good target, since they often have not built up a stable of artists, and are still somewhat malleable. They do
not however, have any track record you can check, so be careful. A few are bad news. Use your gut instinct about character and honesty
etc.
>
>Some gallerists are awful. Some are crooked or shoddy. Some are unspeakably rude. I've been lucky; I've only run into one or two on a
power trip.
>
>Most are honest and are doing something we and they love (and often are nearly or actually losing money doing it) and are overwhelmed by
a tidal wave of portfolios. They need space and acceptance.
>
>Send stuff along with a pre-addressed envelope with ample return postage.
>
>Barring a specific prescription from the gallery, My opinion isto just send just a few of your best pieces - 10 to 20 at most. They may want
slides or unmounted prints or, terror of terrors, a CD showing images of your work.
>
>It is not a winning strategy to try to prove you can work in every photographic style, and deal with every technical problem. Your portfolio
will look scattered and will show no artistic focus - no guiding "personality". While it is not always possible, there is a great deal to be said for
your chances if your works are unmistakably "you". Think Eikoh Hosoe, the Bechers, Avedon, Penn, W. Eugene Smith, Joyce Tennyson,
Edward Burtynsky, Diane Arbus, Bill Brandt, Wynn Bullock, Harry Callahan, Robert Frank, John Coplans, William Eggleston, Joel Meyerowitz,
Duane Micheals, Jerry Uelsmann, Joel-Peter Witkin... You might not like everyone on that list, but their work is difficult to mix up with anyone
else's
>
>Don't send mounted huge prints without making really sure they want to deal with a big package. Chances are they may not be happen to be
looking at new work when you send it unless you check with them first, so a package might be taking up scarce space for weeks and months.
Depending on the gallery, they may look at new work weekly, monthly, annually or irregularly. If a gallerist asks you to actually bring work in
with you and talk with you, that's a rare event, but it does happen.
>
>Don't expect a critique from the gallerist. If you get any feedback at all, they are doing you a favor.
>
>They are in business to sell art. They are retailers. Crits, education, etc. are a bonus.
>
>Paradoxically, the fine arts world is now more open and accepting of photography than ever before. Art magazines are loaded with reviews
of shows based on photography. That does not mean it all will make much sense to someone who hails originally from the photo world. Art
Forum and Art In America are good places to see how just plain different the art world is.
>
>The art world is complex near unto contrariness. It defies generalization. What's of interest now may be less so in a few years. It's not
easy for people from the photography world to "get" what's happening in photography in galleries, let alone what's happening in general in
mainstream art galleries. Even in art galleries exclusively dedicated to photographic work, I say visit the gallery - repeatedly. Know the
gallery. Make sure you like it and that it might be a good fit both ways. Only then, make a move towards bringing them work.
>
>These are big generalizations - and may not apply to any or all those here, but please don't take it personally if I am too wrong or too right
about anyone in particular. There are exceptions to every point I make here, but I'd guess they are nonetheless valid most of the time with
most galleries. I am aiming my thought here most to connecting with commercial galleries, but the world of nonprofits / educational
institutions / foundations and the like is not totally dissimilar.
>
>I am an art school graduate, and spend a lot of my time looking at art and art books and art magazines, and when I can, going to NYC to see
sometimes 20-30 galleries in a day - it can be done, some buildings have ten or twenty galleries in them. Regardless, I often don't "get" a
certain significant percent of what I see. Can't even form any kind of evaluation. That does not mean the work is valueless, or that I am an
idiot, more that in an art hothouse like NYC, people are going off in too many new directions, too fast for an old fogie ( 55ish ) like me to
quickly comprehend. I'm a bit more tolerant of art I don't get, now that my own work has taken a shift I could have not have predicted,
understood, explained, or evaluated, only a couple of years ago. I'm still sorting it out. If I am not fully able to see the future of my work, I
guess I need to give other artists the room to baffle me.
>
>Over the years I have done quite a bit of photography, art / landscape work to commercial product work, but my formal fine arts training is
from the painting / fine arts world. I deal on a small scale with gallerists as a painter, and all the notes precautions I have listed here I have
more than a couple of times passed on to painters etc. venturing into the gallery experience for the first time.
>
>Best,
>
>Charlie
>
>
>
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>From: Christopher Length (chris@chrisportfolio.com)
>Date: 02/08/06-02:37:07 PM Z
>Previous message: TERRYAKING@aol.com: "First gallery ' experience'" (0159.htm)
>In reply to: Kate Mocak: "RE: First gallery ' experience'" (0155.htm)
>
>I wasn't going to chime in here, but I've decided to only because I've gone through all this too, but at the same time, I understand the
gallery's reaction.
>
>It's sucks that you had such a rude experience (it reminds me about applying for an assistantship right out of school for a guy who shot
Palmar-like Sunday inserts of jewelry and when I showed him my school portfolio, which was art, he said that he couldn't use me for his $7 and
hour job of mostly sweeping his studio, and that if I could afford it, to keep going with my "HOBBY"). Ten years later, I have an appointment
tomorrow to finalize a show for the fall, I'm still broke (much more), still have yet to sell a piece, but of course I think I'm amazing, just not yet
discovered, and that my work really belongs in the Whitely. But isn't this how EVERY artist thinks?
>
>But...
>
>Just because I'm doing and living my life as an "artist" doesn't guarantee me anything, even if my work is worthy, let alone to show in a
gallery. You have to remember that each gallery isn't the "voice" of the gallery scene, so to group all galleries in to one lump, as most
reactionaries do, isn't right either (although it's a great venting experience when you have been personally rejected). There were probably
many possible reasons this person said what he said to you, so instead of gathering sympathetic voices to feel better and to easily dismiss
what he said, think about why he said what he did. This isn't some conspiracy of gallery owners "controlling" art, that belief is usually coming
from someone who is constantly rejected and feels like their sh.*t don't stink so they have the opinion of "screw the gallery owners they don't
know art anyways because they don't make it, la la la". Reality: some gallery directors show "tough love", to make you prove to them that you
believe in your work and what you are doing. Some are telling like it is, and that might be something you don't want to hear, but, maybe you
have to listen. Some are just jerks, but ALL have to answer to their group of buyers, art trends, what the public wants, or they go out of
business. This is a business after all. Do you know that is cost 1000's of dollars to put on a proper one-month gallery show in New York City?
And that's just for a basic show with very little publicity and an opening with food and wine. In fact, most galleries are making emerging artist
payment as least half of the costs now (that's what I'm running in to, it will probably cost me at least $1000 to put on this show in the fall) and
still taking 40%-50%, and these are not those so called "vanity" galleries that are doing this. It's the reality of the times because they know
most likely you are not going to sell anything at your first group of showings. It's the reality.
>
>I think many of us still hold to this dream that you make great work, some gallery discovers you, signs you, shows you and you have this
amazing opening where the director of MOMA comes and wants to put some of your pieces in their permanent collection, and you're off and
running. I have this daydream all the time. But it doesn't work that way. It's a HUGE game, and if you're going to play it, you have to play by
the rules and you have to understand what the movers and shakers are reacting to, and that you are an ant to them, until, you have
something they want or they think they want.
>
>Now all this doesn't mean anything when it comes to art. Art is something totally different and as an artist, you have to decide to play the
gallery game or not. It's mutually exclusive and this is what most artist don't understand.
>
>-Chris
>
>Powered by the E-mail PIM - Info Select - www.miclog.com
---- Message sent via Totalise Webmail - http://www.totalise.co.uk Up to 2Mb Broadband now from just £11.99 a month
Received on Mon Feb 13 09:06:20 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 03/13/06-10:42:57 AM Z CST